1932

Abstract

Quality science provides the foundation for expert testimony in court, a claim illustrated here by three established principles of social cognition frequently applied to litigation in employment discrimination cases. First, dual processes, automatic and controlled, underlie “hidden” bias. The Implicit Association Test exemplifies one controversial but scientifically tractable application of such automaticity principles. Second, encoding and attention reveal incredibly early bias. Their potential application via neuroscience in the courtroom will challenge both science and the law. Third, mental construal produces categorical representation. Legal applications show categories’ tenacity despite commonsense expectations about the impact of individuating information. Psychological scientists, expert witnesses, legal scholars, legal practitioners, and organizational managers each benefit when quality science is imported into legal contexts. Normal science disagreements should not mistakenly tarnish the credibility of quality science.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172350
2008-12-01
2025-02-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/4/1/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172350.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172350&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aarts H, Dijksterhuis A. 2000. Habits as knowledge structures: automaticity in goal-directed behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78:53–63 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allport GW. 1954/1979. The Nature of Prejudice Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books [Google Scholar]
  3. Amodio DM, Harmon-Jones E, Devine PG. 2003. Individual differences in the activation and control of affective race bias as assessed by startle eyeblink response and self-report. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 84:738–53 [Google Scholar]
  4. Amodio DM, Harmon-Jones E, Devine PG, Curtin JJ, Hartley SL, Covert AE. 2004. Neural signals for the detection of unintentional race bias. Psychol. Sci. 15:88–93 [Google Scholar]
  5. Annas GJ. 2007. Foreword: imagining a new era of neuroimaging, neuroethics, and neurolaw. Am. J. Law Med. 33:163–70Very useful special issue on the science, law, and ethics of neurolaw and especially neural imaging evidence in court. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bagenstos SR. 2007. Implicit bias, “science,” and antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Policy Rev. 1:477–93 [Google Scholar]
  7. Banks RR, Eberhardt JL, Ross L. 2008. Race, crime, and antidiscrimination. See Borgida & Fiske 2008 3–22
  8. Bargh JA. 2005. Bypassing the will: toward demystifying the nonconscious control of social behavior. See Hassan et al. 2005 37–58
  9. Bargh JA, Chen M, Burrows L. 1996. Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71:223–44 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bargh JA, Raymond P, Pryor JB, Strack F. 1995. Attractiveness of the underling: an automatic power? Sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68:768–81 [Google Scholar]
  11. Baskin JH, Edersheim J, Price B. 2007. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Neuroimaging in the courtroom. Am. J. Law Med. 33:239–69 [Google Scholar]
  12. Beck v. Boeing Company 203 F.R.D. 459 (D. Wash. 2001) [Google Scholar]
  13. Bielby WT. 2003. Can I get a witness? Challenges of using expert testimony on cognitive bias in employment discrimination. Employee Rights Employ. Policy J. 7:377–97 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bingham C, Gansler LL. 2002. Class Action: The Landmark Case that Changed Sexual Harassment Law New York: Anchor Books [Google Scholar]
  15. Blair IV, Banaji MR. 1996. Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70:1142–63 [Google Scholar]
  16. Blanton H, Jaccard J. 2006. Arbitrary metrics in psychology. Am. Psychol. 61:242–61 [Google Scholar]
  17. Blascovich J, Mendes WB, Hunter SB, Lickel B, Kowai-Bell N. 2001. Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 80:253–67 [Google Scholar]
  18. Blau FD, Kahn LM. 2006. The gender pay gap: going, going…but not gone. The Declining Significance of the Gender Gap? FD Blau, MC Brinton, DB Grusky 37–66 New York: Russell Sage Found. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bogner WC, Barr PS. 2000. Making sense in hypercompetitive environments: a cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organ. Sci. 11:212–26 [Google Scholar]
  20. Borgida E, Fiske ST. 2008. Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom. Malden, MA: BlackwellEdited volume that examines how psychological science challenges and contradicts commonsense ideas about legally relevant behaviors. [Google Scholar]
  21. Borgida E, Hunt C, Kim A. 2005. On the use of gender stereotyping research in sex discrimination litigation. J. Law Pol. 2:613–28Discussion of expert testimony on gender stereotyping and prejudice in the form of social framework analysis addressing causation issues in litigation. [Google Scholar]
  22. Borgida E, Rudman LA, Manteufel LL. 1995. On the courtroom use and misuse of gender stereotyping research. J. Soc. Issues 51:181–92 [Google Scholar]
  23. Brewer MB. 1999. The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love or outgroup hate?. J. Soc. Issues 55:429–44 [Google Scholar]
  24. Brewer MB, Harasty Feinstein AS. 1999. Dual processes in the cognitive representation of persons and social categories. See Chaiken & Trope 1999 255–70
  25. Butler v. Home Depot, Inc. 984 F. Supp. 1257 (N.D. Cal. 1997). [Google Scholar]
  26. Chaiken S, Trope Y. 1999. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology New York: Guilford: [Google Scholar]
  27. Choi YS, Gray HM, Ambady N. 2005. The glimpsed world: unintended communication and unintended perception. See Hassan et al. 2005 309–33
  28. Clausell E, Fiske ST. 2005. When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole? Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. Soc. Cogn. 23:161–81 [Google Scholar]
  29. Cloutier J, Mason MF, Macrae CN. 2005. The perceptual determinants of person construal: reopening the social-cognitive toolbox. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88:885–94 [Google Scholar]
  30. Copus D. 2005. Avoiding junk science: a lawyer's view. Employment Discrimination Litigation: Behavioral, Quantitative, and Legal Perspectives FJ Landy 450–62 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  31. Correll J, Park B, Judd CM, Wittenbrink B. 2002. The police officer's dilemma: using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83:1314–29 [Google Scholar]
  32. Correll J, Park B, Judd CM, Wittenbrink B, Sadler MS, Keesee T. 2007. Across the thin blue line: police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 92:1006–23 [Google Scholar]
  33. Correll J, Urland GR, Ito TA. 2006. Event-related potentials and the decision to shoot: the role of threat perception and cognitive control. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42:120–28 [Google Scholar]
  34. Cosmides L, Tooby J. 1989. Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture: II. Case study: A computational theory of social exchange. Ethol. Sociobiol. 10:51–97 [Google Scholar]
  35. Cosmides L, Tooby J, Fiddick L, Bryant GA. 2005. Detecting cheaters: comment. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9:505–6 [Google Scholar]
  36. Crosby FJ, Dovidio JF. 2008. Discrimination in America and legal strategies for reducing it. See Borgida & Fiske 2008 23–43
  37. Crosby FJ, Iyer A, Sincharoen S. 2006. Understanding affirmative action. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:585–611 [Google Scholar]
  38. Crosby FJ, Stockdale MS, Ropp SA. 2007. Sex Discrimination in the Workplace: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  39. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P. 2004. When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn't cut the ice. J. Soc. Issues 60:701–18 [Google Scholar]
  40. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P. 2007. The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 92:631–48 [Google Scholar]
  41. Cuddy AJC, Norton MI, Fiske ST. 2005. This old stereotype: the pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. J. Soc. Issues 61:265–83 [Google Scholar]
  42. Cunningham WA, Johnson MK, Raye CL, Gatenby JC, Gore JC, Banaji MR. 2004. Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychol. Sci. 15:806–13 [Google Scholar]
  43. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 1993. [Google Scholar]
  44. Devine PG. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: their automatic and controlled components. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 56:5–18 [Google Scholar]
  45. Dijksterhuis A, Aarts H, Smith PK. 2005. The power of the subliminal: on subliminal persuasion and other potential applications. See Hassan et al. 2005 77–106
  46. Dijksterhuis A, van Knippenberg A. 1998. The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:865–77 [Google Scholar]
  47. Dovidio JF, Evans N, Tyler RB. 1986. Racial stereotypes: the contents of their cognitive representations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22:22–37 [Google Scholar]
  48. Eagly AH, Karau SJ. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109:573–98 [Google Scholar]
  49. Eagly AH, Koenig AM. 2008. Gender prejudice: on the risks of occupying incongruent roles. See Borgida & Fiske 2008 63–82
  50. Eberhardt JL, Dasgupta N, Banaszynski TL. 2003. Believing is seeing: the effects of racial labels and implicit beliefs on face perception. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:360–70 [Google Scholar]
  51. Eberhardt JL, Davies PG, Purdie-Vaughns VJ, Johnson SL. 2006. Looking deathworthy: perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychol. Sci. 17:383–86 [Google Scholar]
  52. Eberhardt JL, Goff PA, Purdie VJ, Davies PG. 2004. Seeing black: race, crime, and visual processing. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87:876–93 [Google Scholar]
  53. Eckes T. 2002. Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles 47:99–114 [Google Scholar]
  54. EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Unlawful disparate treatment of workers with care giving responsibilities Order 915.002. Issued 5/23/07 [Google Scholar]
  55. EEOC v. Morgan Stanley & Co. 324 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) [Google Scholar]
  56. Engell AD, Haxby JV, Todorov A. 2007. Implicit trustworthiness decisions: automatic coding of face properties in the human amygdala. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19:1508–19 [Google Scholar]
  57. Evans JS. 2007. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:255–78 [Google Scholar]
  58. Faigman DL. 2008. The limits of science in the courtroom. See Borgida & Fiske 2008 303–14
  59. Faigman DL, Dasgupta N, Ridgeway CL. 2008. A matter of fit: the law of discrimination and the science of implicit bias. Hastings Law Rev. In press [Google Scholar]
  60. Faigman DL, Monahan J. 2005. Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:631–59Thorough guide to the past, present, and future of legal standards that govern the admission of expert evidence at trial. [Google Scholar]
  61. Faigman DL, Saks MJ, Sanders J, Cheng EK. 2007. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony St. Paul, MN: Thomson West [Google Scholar]
  62. Fazio RH, Olson MA. 2003. Implicit measures in social cognition research: their meaning and use. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:297–327 [Google Scholar]
  63. Federal Rules of Evidence 2004. (December 31) Washington, DC: USGPO [Google Scholar]
  64. Fiske ST. 1993. Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. Am. Psychol. 48:621–28 [Google Scholar]
  65. Fiske ST. 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. See Gilbert et al. 1998 357–414
  66. Fiske ST. 2000. Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination S Oskamp 115–35 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  67. Fiske ST, Bersoff DN, Borgida E, Deaux K, Heilman ME. 1991. Social science research on trial: the use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Am. Psychol. 46:1049–60 [Google Scholar]
  68. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P. 2007. Universal dimensions of social perception: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11:77–83 [Google Scholar]
  69. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJ, Glick P, Xu J. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82:878–902 [Google Scholar]
  70. Fiske ST, Harris LT, Cuddy AJC. 2004. Policy forum: Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science 306:1482–83 [Google Scholar]
  71. Fiske ST, Krieger LH. 2009. Policy implications of unexamined discrimination: gender bias in employment as a case study. Behavioral Foundations of Policy E Shafir Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press/New York: Russell Sage In press [Google Scholar]
  72. Fiske ST, Lin MH, Neuberg SL. 1999. The continuum model: ten years later. See Chaiken & Trope 1999 231–54
  73. Fiske ST, Stevens LE. 1993. What's so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. Gender Issues in Contemporary Society: Applied Social Psychology Annual S Oskamp, M Costanzo 173–196 Newbury Park, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  74. Fiske ST, Taylor SE. 2008. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Educ.The New Testament for social cognition researchers, including a comprehensive treatment of the three scientific principles discussed in this review. [Google Scholar]
  75. Förster J, Liberman N. 2007. Knowledge activation. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles AW Kruglanski, ET Higgins 201–31 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
  76. Frith CD. 2007. The social brain?. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 362:671–78 [Google Scholar]
  77. Gaertner SL, McLaughlin JP. 1983. Racial stereotypes: associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Soc. Psychol. Q. 46:23–40 [Google Scholar]
  78. Garland B. 2004. Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice New York: Dana Press [Google Scholar]
  79. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G. 1998. The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 4th.ed. [Google Scholar]
  80. Glick P, Fiske ST. 2001. Ambivalent sexism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 33:115–88 [Google Scholar]
  81. Glick P, Fiske ST. 2007. Sex discrimination: the psychological approach. See Crosby et al. 2007 155–88
  82. Golby AJ, Gabrieli JDE, Chiao JY, Eberhardt JL. 2001. Differential responses in the fusiform region to the same-race and other-race faces. Nat. Neurosci. 4:845–50 [Google Scholar]
  83. Greely HT. 2004. Prediction, litigation, privacy, and property: Some possible legal and social implications of advances in social neuroscience. See Garland 2004 114–56
  84. Greely HT, Illes J. 2007. Neuroscience-based lie detection. Am. J. Law Med. 33:377–432 [Google Scholar]
  85. Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T. 1985. The effects of an overheard ethnic slur on evaluations of the target: how to spread a social disease. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21:61–72 [Google Scholar]
  86. Greenwald AG, Krieger LH. 2006. Implicit bias: scientific foundations. Calif. Law Rev. 94:945–67 [Google Scholar]
  87. Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann E, Banaji MR. 2008. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. In press [Google Scholar]
  88. Hansen CH, Hansen RD. 1988. How rock music videos can change what is seen when boy meets girl: priming stereotypic appraisal of social interactions. Sex Roles 19:287–316 [Google Scholar]
  89. Harris LT, Fiske ST. 2006. Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: neuro-imaging responses to extreme outgroups. Psychol. Sci. 17:847–53 [Google Scholar]
  90. Harris LT, Fiske ST. 2007. Social groups that elicit disgust are differentially processed in mPFC. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2:45–51 [Google Scholar]
  91. Harris LT, Fiske ST. 2008. Dehumanized perception: the social neuroscience of thinking (or not thinking) about disgusting people. European Review of Social Psychology M Hewstone, W Stroebe London: Wiley In press [Google Scholar]
  92. Hart M. 2005. Subjective decision making and unconscious discrimination. Ala. Law Rev. 56:741–91 [Google Scholar]
  93. Hart M. 2007. The possibility of avoiding discrimination: considering compliance and liability. Conn. Law Rev. 39:1621–46 [Google Scholar]
  94. Hart M, Whalen PJ, Shin LM, McInerney SC, Fischer H, Rauch SL. 2000. Differential response in the human amygdala to racial outgroup vs ingroup face stimuli. NeuroReport: Rap. Comm. Neurosci. Res. 11:2351–55 [Google Scholar]
  95. Hassan RR, Uleman J, Bargh JA. 2005. The New Unconscious New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  96. Heilman ME, Haynes MC. 2008. Subjectivity in the appraisal process: a facilitator of gender bias in work settings. See Borgida & Fiske 2008 127–56
  97. Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H. 2002. Intergroup bias. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:575–604 [Google Scholar]
  98. Higgins ET. 1996. Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles ET Higgins, AW Kruglanski 133–68 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
  99. Hirsh CE, Kornrich S. 2008. The context of discrimination: workplace conditions, institutional environments, and sex and race discrimination charges. Am. J. Sociol. 113:1394–432 [Google Scholar]
  100. Hodgkinson GP, Healey MP. 2008. Cognition in organizations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:387–417 [Google Scholar]
  101. Hogg MA, Abrams D. 2003. Intergroup behavior and social identity. The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology MA Hogg, J Cooper 407–31 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  102. Hopkins AB. 2007. Opposing views, strongly held. See Crosby et al. 2007 59–67
  103. Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 618 F. Supp. 1109 (D. D.C. 1985); appeal: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 825 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Supreme Court review: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 109 S. Ct. 1775 (1989); remand: Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, No. 84–3040, slip op. (D. D.C. May 14, 1990)
  104. Hough LM, Oswald FL. 2000. Personnel selection: looking toward the future—remembering the past. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51:631–64 [Google Scholar]
  105. Hunt JS, Borgida E, Kelly KA, Burgess D. 2002. Gender stereotyping: scientific status. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony D Faigman, DH Kaye, MJ Saks, J Sanders 374–426 St. Paul, MN: West [Google Scholar]
  106. Hurst v. F.W. Woolworth Co., No. 95 Civ. 6584, 1997 WL 685341, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 1997)
  107. Iacono WG. 2008. Polygraph testing. See Borgida & Fiske 2008:219–36 [Google Scholar]
  108. Int'l Healthcare Exch., Inc. v. Global Healthcare Exch., LLC, 470 F. Supp. 2d 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
  109. Ito TA, Urland GR. 2003. Race and gender on the brain: electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85:616–26 [Google Scholar]
  110. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 824 F. Supp. 847 (D. Minn. 1993)
  111. Jolls C. 2007. Antidiscrimination law's effects on implicit bias. Behavioral Analyses of Workplace Discrimination M Gulati, M Yelnosky 1–46 New York: Kluwer Acad. [Google Scholar]
  112. Jolls C, Sunstein CR. 2006. The law of implicit bias. Calif. Law Rev. 94:969–96A primer on the implications of contemporary psychological science on implicit bias processes for thinking about antidiscrimination law. [Google Scholar]
  113. Jones OD, Goldsmith TH. 2005. Law and behavioral biology. Columbia Law Rev. 105:405–502 [Google Scholar]
  114. Jonides J, Lewis RL, Nee DE, Lustig CA, Berman MG, Moore KS. 2008. The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:193–224 [Google Scholar]
  115. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. 2007. Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white male effect in risk perception. J. Emp. Legal Stud. 4:465–505 [Google Scholar]
  116. Kahneman D. 2007. Daniel Kahneman. A History of Psychology in Autobiography L Gardner, WM Runyan 155–97 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  117. Kalev A, Dobbin F, Kelly E. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:589–617Important empirical analysis of federal database on private sector diversity practices that identifies best practices for promoting organizational diversity. [Google Scholar]
  118. Kang J, Banaji MR. 2006. Fair measures: a behavioral realist revision of “affirmative action.”. Calif. Law Rev. 94:1063–118 [Google Scholar]
  119. Kassin SM. 2008. Expert testimony on the psychology of confessions: a pyramidal framework of the relevant science. See Borgida & Fiske 2008 195–218
  120. Kassin SM, Ellsworth PC, Smith VL. 1989. The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: a survey of the experts. Am. Psychol. 44:1089–98 [Google Scholar]
  121. Katz I, Haas RG. 1988. Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 55:893–905 [Google Scholar]
  122. Krendl AC, Macrae CN, Kelley WM, Fugelsang JA, Heatherton TF. 2006. The good, the bad and the ugly: an fMRI investigation of the functional correlates of stigma. Soc. Neurosci. 1:5–15 [Google Scholar]
  123. Krieger LH. 1998. Civil rights Perestroika: intergroup relations after affirmative action. Calif. Law Rev. 86:1254–333 [Google Scholar]
  124. Krieger LH. 2008. Behavioral realism in law: reframing the discussion about social science's place in antidiscrimination law and policy. See Borgida & Fiske 2008 383–98
  125. Krieger LH, Fiske ST. 2006. Behavioral realism in employment discrimination law: implicit bias and disparate treatment. Calif. Law Rev. 94:997–1062A must read in order to learn how scientific research on hidden bias challenges assumptions about intentionality in antidiscrimination law. [Google Scholar]
  126. Landy FJ. 2008a. Stereotypes, bias and personnel decisions: strange and stranger. Ind. Org. Psychol. Perspect. Sci. Pract. In press [Google Scholar]
  127. Landy FJ. 2008b. The tenuous bridge between research and reality: the importance of research design in inferences regarding work behavior. See Borgida & Fiske 2008 341–52
  128. Lane Banaji KA MR, Nosek BA, Greenwald AG. 2007a. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far). Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures and Controversies B Wittenbrink, NS Schwarz 59–102 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
  129. Lane KA, Kang J, Banaji MR. 2007b. Implicit social cognition and law. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 3:427–51 [Google Scholar]
  130. Lieberman MD, Hariri A, Jarcho JM, Eisenberger NI, Bookheimer SY. 2005. An fMRI investigation of race-related amygdala activity in African-American and Caucasian-American individuals. Nat. Neurosci. 8:720–22 [Google Scholar]
  131. Lin MH, Kwan VSY, Cheung A, Fiske ST. 2005. Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31:34–47 [Google Scholar]
  132. Macrae CN, Quinn KA, Mason MF, Quadfleig S. 2005. Understanding others: the face and person construal. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 89:686–95 [Google Scholar]
  133. McKay PF, McDaniel MA. 2006. A reexamination of black-white mean differences in work performance: more data, more moderators. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:538–54 [Google Scholar]
  134. McKenzie-Mohr D, Zanna MP. 1990. Treating women as sexual objects: look to the (gender schematic) male who has viewed pornography. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 16:296–308 [Google Scholar]
  135. Mellers B, Hertwig R, Kahneman D. 2001. Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychol. Sci. 12:269–75 [Google Scholar]
  136. Mendes WB, Blasovich J, Lickel B, Hunter S. 2002. Challenge and threat during social interaction with white and black men. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:939–52 [Google Scholar]
  137. Mitchell G, Tetlock PE. 2006. Antidiscrimination law and the perils of mindreading. Ohio State Univ. Law Rev. 67:1023–122To date, the most comprehensive and provocative scientific, legal, and philosophical critique of the IAT's standing in employment discrimination litigation. [Google Scholar]
  138. Monahan J, Walker L. 1998. Social Science in Law: Cases and Materials Westbury, NY: Found. Press [Google Scholar]
  139. Monahan J, Walker L, Mitchell G. 2008. Contextual evidence of gender discrimination: the ascendance of “social frameworks.”. Va. Law Rev. In press [Google Scholar]
  140. Mussweiler T, Förster J. 2000. The sex-aggression link: a perception-behavior dissociation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:507–20 [Google Scholar]
  141. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. 1977. Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84:231–59 [Google Scholar]
  142. Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. 2007. The Implicit Association Test at age 7: a methodological and conceptual review. Automatic Processes in Social Thinking and Behavior JA Bargh 265–92 Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press [Google Scholar]
  143. Page A. 2005. Batson's blind-spot: unconscious stereotyping and the peremptory challenge. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 85:155 [Google Scholar]
  144. Pager D. 2003. The mark of a criminal record. Am. J. Sociol. 108:937–75 [Google Scholar]
  145. Pager D, Quillian L. 2005. Walking the talk: what employers say versus what they do. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70:355–80 [Google Scholar]
  146. Parks-Stamm EJ, Heilman ME, Hearns KA. 2008. Motivated to penalize: women's strategic rejection of successful women. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34:237–47 [Google Scholar]
  147. Payne BK. 2001. Prejudice and perception: the role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:181–92 [Google Scholar]
  148. Payne BK, Jacoby LL, Lambert AJ. 2005. Attitudes as accessibility bias: dissociating automatic and controlled processes. See Hassan et al. 2005 393–420
  149. Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 90:751–83 [Google Scholar]
  150. Pettit M Jr. 2007. fMRI and BF meet FRE: brain imaging and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Am. J. Law Med. 33:319–40 [Google Scholar]
  151. Phelps EA, O'Connor KJ, Cunningham WA, Funayama ES, Gatenby JC. et al. 2000. Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12:729–38 [Google Scholar]
  152. Pizzi WT, Blair IV, Judd CM. 2005. Discrimination in sentencing on the basis of Afrocentric features. Mich. J. Race Law 10:327–55 [Google Scholar]
  153. Plant EA, Peruche BM. 2005. The consequences of race for police officers’ responses to criminal suspects. Psychol. Sci. 16:180–83 [Google Scholar]
  154. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228 1989. [Google Scholar]
  155. Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W. 2d 355 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) [Google Scholar]
  156. Reskin BF. 2005. Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality. Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research: Research and Realities LB Nielson, RL Nelson 75–97 Dordrecht: Springer [Google Scholar]
  157. Rhode DL, Williams JC. 2007. Legal perspectives on employment discrimination. See Crosby et al. 2007 235–70
  158. Richeson JA, Baird AA, Gordon HL, Heatherton TF, Wyland CL. et al. 2003. An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nat. Neurosci. 6:1323–28 [Google Scholar]
  159. Richeson JA, Shelton NJ. 2003. When prejudice does not pay: effects of interracial contact on executive function. Psychol. Sci. 14:287–90 [Google Scholar]
  160. Richeson JA, Trawalter S. 2003. Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource-depletion account. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88:934–47 [Google Scholar]
  161. Ridgeway CL, England P. 2007. Sociological approaches to sex discrimination in employment. See Crosby et al. 2007 189–212
  162. Rilling JK, Gutman D, Zeh T, Pagnoni G, Berns G, Kilts C. 2002. A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron 18:395–405 [Google Scholar]
  163. Rilling JK, Sanfey AG, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. 2004. The neural correlates of theory of mind within interpersonal interactions. Neuroimage 22:1694–703 [Google Scholar]
  164. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. 760 F. Supp. 1486 (D. Fla. 1991) [Google Scholar]
  165. Rosen J. 2007. The brain on the stand. New York Times Mag. March 11, Sect. 6, pp. 48–53, 70, 77, 82–83 [Google Scholar]
  166. Roth PL, Huffcutt AI, Bobko P. 2003. Ethnic group differences in measures of job performance: a new meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:694–706 [Google Scholar]
  167. Rudman LA. 1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:629–45 [Google Scholar]
  168. Rudman LA, Borgida E. 1995. The afterglow of construct accessibility: the behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 31:493–517 [Google Scholar]
  169. Rudman LA, Fairchild K. 2004. Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: the role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87:157–76 [Google Scholar]
  170. Rudman LA, Glick P. 1999. Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: the hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle-managers. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 77:1004–10 [Google Scholar]
  171. Rudman LA, Glick P. 2001. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57:743–62 [Google Scholar]
  172. Rudman LA, Glick P, Phelan JE. 2008. From the laboratory to the bench: gender stereotyping research in the courtroom. See Borgida & Fiske 2008 83–102
  173. Sackett PR, Lievens F. 2008. Personnel selection. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:419–50 [Google Scholar]
  174. Saks MJ, Faigman DL. 2005. Expert evidence after Daubert. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1:105–130 [Google Scholar]
  175. Shelley Hnot, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. Opinion and Order on motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert testimony. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 01 Civ. 6558(GEL), June 1, 2007
  176. Smith ER. 1998. Mental representation and memory. See Gilbert et al. 1998 391–445
  177. Sommers SR, Norton MI. 2007. Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications: experimental examination of peremptory use and the Batson challenge procedure. Law Hum. Behav. 31:261–73 [Google Scholar]
  178. Stoller SE, Wolpe P. 2007. Root emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection and the Fifth Amendment. Am. J. Law Med. 33:359–75 [Google Scholar]
  179. Stryker R. 1994. Rules, resources, and legitimacy processes: some implications for social conflict, order, and change. Am. J. Sociol. 4:847–910 [Google Scholar]
  180. Tancredi LR, Brodie JD. 2007. The brain and behavior: limitations in the legal use of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Am. J. Law Med. 33:271–94 [Google Scholar]
  181. Thompson M, Sekaquaptewa D. 2002. When being different is detrimental: solo status and the performance of women and racial minorities. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2:183–203 [Google Scholar]
  182. Thompson SK. 2007. A brave new world of interrogation jurisprudence?. Am. J. Law Med. 33:341–57 [Google Scholar]
  183. Todorov A. 2008. Evaluating faces on trustworthiness: an extension of systems for recognition of emotions signaling approach/avoidance behaviors. The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience 2008 A Kingstone, M Miller 1124208–24 Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences New York: New York. Acad. Sci. [Google Scholar]
  184. Todorov A, Baron S, Oosterhof NN. 2008. Evaluating face trustworthiness: a model based approach. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 3:119–27 [Google Scholar]
  185. Todorov A, Gobbini MI, Evans KK, Haxby JV. 2007. Spontaneous retrieval of affective person knowledge in face perception. Neuropsychology 45:163–73 [Google Scholar]
  186. Todorov A, Mandisodza AN, Goren A, Hall CC. 2005. Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science 308:1623–26 [Google Scholar]
  187. Uleman JS, Blader SL, Todorov A. 2005. Implicit impressions. See Hassan et al. 2005 362–92
  188. Vanman EE, Paul BY, Ito TA, Miller N. 1997. The modern face of prejudice and structural features that moderate the effect of cooperation on effect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 73:941–59 [Google Scholar]
  189. Walter H, Abler B, Ciaramidaro A, Erk S. 2005. Motivating forces of human actions. Neuroimaging reward and social interaction. Brain Res. 15:368–81 [Google Scholar]
  190. Wegner DM. 2005. Who is the controller of controlled processes?. See Hassan et al. 2005 19–36
  191. Wegner DM, Bargh JA. 1998. Control and automaticity in social life. See Gilbert et al. 1998 446–96
  192. Wheeler ME, Fiske ST. 2005. Controlling racial prejudice and stereotyping: social cognitive goals affect amygdala and stereotype activation. Psychol. Sci. 16:56–63 [Google Scholar]
  193. Williams JC. 2003. The social psychology of stereotyping: using social science to litigate gender discrimination cases and defang the ‘cluelessness’ defense. Employee Rights Employ. Policy J. 7:401A thorough legal treatment of social psychological research on stereotyping and prejudice as it pertains to family responsibility discrimination law. [Google Scholar]
  194. Williams JC, Segal N. 2003. Beyond the maternal wall: relief for family caregivers who are discriminated against on the job. Harvard Women's Law J. 26:77–162 [Google Scholar]
  195. Willis J, Todorov A. 2006. First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychol. Sci. 17:592–98 [Google Scholar]
  196. Zebrowitz LA, Montepare JM. 2005. Appearance DOES matter. Science 308:1565–66 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172350
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error